20510766 1 ! 20510766 Kristen Marumoto ARBUS 202 Kurt Holukoff March 27, 2014 ! Case 3.

4: Weyco: Health Policy or Employee Discrimination Ever since grade one, children across Canada are being taught about the negative consequences smoking has on the body and the overall health of an individual. However, should an individuals choices of health be the difference between maintaining a occupational position and being unemployed? The Weyenberg Shoe Manufacturing Company, now famously known as Weyco Inc. had an eye-opening situation in January of 2005, bringing light to the companys controversial features of their smoking ban (Grace 79). It is not the question, if smoking is moral? But whether or not employees are discriminated in their workplace because of their bad habit. The moral outlook of Consequentialism sheds light upon the consequences of this ban, and the effects on the employees, to determine if this particular ban is moral. The quality of ones duty in a company also comes into question, using the Deontological moral view, and the side effects of quitting the habit of smoking. Employees of Weyco Inc. were discriminated against as a result of the companys assumption; smokers are the cause for the companys high healthcare costs. The moral outlook, Consequentialism assesses a situation and decides if it is moral based on the consequences of the situation (Grace 14). Applying this basis to the Weyco Inc. ban on smoking, in order to decide whether discrimination is a result from the ban, the consequences of the ban need to be evaluated. Not all of the consequences of the ban are bad, in fact there are some positives to this ban like; 20 employees quit

20510766 2 ! smoking either by going through it themselves, or by using the free programs offered by the company, and the incentives like the Lifestyle Package where employees would be eligible for a $110 per month for deciding to quit smoking (Grace 79). However, the negative consequences which illustrate the policys discrimination would be the fact not all employees relate to this policy. Instead of a policy which encourages a general healthy lifestyle that all employees can relate to this, only the smokers relate to this policy, not even employees of the company but the spouses of the employees who smoke are included in this policy (Grace 79). This policy makes the accessibility of medical insurance harder for smokers to achieve, not only do they have to worry about themselves, but they also have to ask the question to their spouse, can you quit smoking in order for me to get medical insurance? when smoking is a personal choice. The companys founder, Howard Weyers, attempted to justify the reasoning behind this ban being, I dont want to pay the results of smoking the biggest frustration in the workplace is the cost of healthcare. Medical plans werent established to pay for unhealthy lifestyles, (Grace 79). The significance of this statement is that Weyers suggests an employee that smokes causes the companys medical insurance costs to increase. However, later on Weyers admits he has no evidence to support his statement and has not bothered to study the amount smokers effect the medical insurance costs of the company (Grace 79). Even more so the company would have to pay for all the additional offered courses and sessions to help quit their addiction (Grace 79). This shows the discrimination of smokers because the company expected the employees who smoke to make sacrifices to the company in order to keep their jobs, without any sufficient evidence of their impacts on the companys medical insurance costs. The

20510766 3 ! smokers of the company were expected to quit smoking, make their spouses quit smoking in order to maintain their position in the company and be eligible for medical insurance. Smoking is a personal choice; therefore for a company to impose a health policy that makes individuals go through the tough process of withdrawal and cravings that both work and do not work for the company is immoral. Smokers are fired, a smoker could be a better worker than a non-smoker but they could be fired over the non-smoker because of the health policy. This may not be discrimination on purpose against the smokers; however, this is an example of discrimination, the type of discrimination is debatable. It could be indirect discrimination, the result of some activity without being the aim of that activity (Grace 138), or it could be direct discrimination, the intent to discriminate (Grace 138). The form of discrimination is based on the intent, if there is no intent to discriminate it is a form of indirect discrimination, however, there could be intent based on the fact this policy singles out a group of people based on nothing but assumptions. Either way discrimination is present in this policy, the consequences of this policy make it clear it is immoral and presses unnecessary hardships a group of singled-out employees of Weyco Inc. From a deontological perspective Weyco Inc. crippled the ability of the smokers to do their duty as a Weyco Inc. employee. The definition of deontology is as such, a moral outlook that evaluates actions or behaviours according to something other than the consequences of those behaviours (Grace 16). Deontology focuses primarily on the ability of an individual to continue or complete his or her own duties regardless of the consequences. This relates to the smoking employees of Weyco Inc. because every employee has a duty in some form, cleaning the floors to establishing next quarters

20510766 4 ! budget, the employees all have a specific job assigned to them in the company. However, what happens when the accountant gets the numbers mixed up because all they can think about is when they are going to get their next chance to smoke, only to realize they are not going to get one? Quitting the unhealthy habit of smoking is not an easy task; smokers that quit have a hard road ahead of them dealing with many short term symptoms such as nicotine cravings, mood swings, anxiety, depression, and weight gain (National Cancer Institute n.p.). Having this policy in place in other words not only makes it hard for an employee to keep their job, but it also makes it harder for an employee to do an exceptional job. A question that becomes apparent in this scenario is, should the company focus on quality or quantity? Because with the symptoms the smokers would have to deal with to quit would no doubt affect their work; they could have a tough meeting dealing with anger and frustration, or deal with constant nicotine cravings taking their focus off of their work. The company would have to question why they would put up with such technicalities when all it comes down to is how the employee is contributing to the company. This further makes the companys health policy questionably discriminative toward smokers, because Weyco Inc. would make both parties; the smokers and the company go through many troubles without anything to base their suspicions. Not only is the company making the employees change their lifestyles but change their work habits which could potentially harm the company, costing the company more in time and effort on the employees. It is unacceptable the only reason why these employees have to go through these such troubles with no explanation, it is no wonder Weyco Inc. had four employees walk out and quit instead of agreeing to be tested (Grace79). Not only does Weyco Inc. enforce this health policy,

20510766 5 ! which causes many hardships upon the smokers, but then makes them all have random drug tests showing the company does not trust the word of the employees. It is understandable the company wants to make sure their policy is being followed, however, the employees they quit regardless of the consequences because they were probably fed up with the kind of treatment they had to go through. It is possible these employees thought they were doing the right thing by quitting the company and showing Weyco Inc. employees should not be subjected to the discrimination. Be it indirect, or direct discrimination, the employees still had to experience the fear of constantly losing their job not by getting caught having a cigarette, but their job performance suffering due to withdrawal symptoms. In conclusion, a form of discrimination is the result of Weyco Inc.s health policy from the perspectives of consequentialism and deontology. Consequentialism explores the consequences of Weyco Inc.s health policy to determine it is not moral or considerate to the employees. And the deontological view scrutinizes the health policy by studying the affects nicotine withdrawal on an employees occupational quality. Weyco Inc.s health policy makes it understandable why Weyco Inc. experienced the four employees walk away from the company. Experiencing hardship after hardship in order to maintain their job would make their lives stressful while dealing with the withdrawal symptoms seems like a Herculean act. If the company had concerns regarding the company health costs to such a degree, they should have made sure to back up all their concerns with viable evidence the employees would not question.

20510766 6 ! Works Cited Grace, Damian, Stephen Cohen and William R. Holmes. Business Ethics: Canadian Edition. Don Mills: Oxford University Press, 2014. Print. "Handling Withdrawal Symptoms & Triggers When You Decide to Quit. National Institute of Health. National Cancer Institute, 29 Oct. 2010. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.

! !